@Lenke
They don’t believe that there is anything wrong with him that they could or should fix.
First of all, we’re talking about medical professionals—who immediately and blithely dismiss him as a drunkard. So, many of them get it wrong. They don’t think he’s in a serious condition when he really is. When they do realize it’s serious, they actually take steps to help him.
how many people would step in to help the same way as I said above?
But what if the people were medical professionals? And in this case, the person in need of help is coming to see the medical professionals for help!
It doesn’t matter any more who he is, one should follow the protocol.
But isn’t properly diagnosing someone part of the protocol as well? Or are you saying that even doctors would treat an old nobody drunk in a callous way? If that’s the case, the film seems to be condemning (and ridiculing) that, right?
Notice the age of the paramedic, please.
She’s older. But so is the first doctor. So you’re saying this is a film about the way old nobodies are mistreated?
And remember the joke I told you. One must insist, even if that particular thing is their right and even if someone with power stands behind them. THIS is specific to Romania.
I don’t really get the joke. (I’m an American by the way.)
Very carefully portrayed as such.
And the purpose of this is to show that other people wouldn’t go out of there way to help him? If that’s correct, what is the purpose of that?
Are you saying that the film is saying one shouldn’t go beyond their role in society or position of authority?
The film is showing us that they don’t and are allowed by societal structure not to have to go beyond their authority.
Note the nurses in conflict with the docs – the primary concern of the docs is maintaining their position.
The paramedic seems to care – is that a necessary dramatic device ? doesn’t it set-off the rest of the characters and events? Doesn’t she literally drive the action?
And the purpose of this is to show that other people wouldn’t go out of there way to help him? If that’s correct, what is the purpose of that?
How Lazarescu is constructed is a very important puzzle piece to understand what the film is saying.
So, by stripping away the most remote chance of identifying with Mr. Lăzărescu based on any other levels, you are left with the only one element you can relate to: he is a human being.
Okay, so we have a human being and we know doctors doctor right?
So why don’t they doctor the guy in the film?
What is it that lets them not do what they are supposed to do?
Aren’t there rules, roles, and regulations that dehumanize their purpose at the same time those things structure their purpose?
@Jazzaloha
“First of all, we’re talking about medical professionals, who immediately and blithely dismiss him as a drunkard.”
Well, he could be, couldn’t he? And he doesn’t insist that he’s not!!! It is considered that many old, lonely and weird people turn to doctors (among others) simply to get some attention. It is a really existing phenomenon, and I for example know personally about a case with an old guy who starves on purpose so that when he is in really bad condition, is admitted to a hospital and is taken care of, talked to, listened to and all in all: treated as if he counts. Münchhausen de proxy East-European way for ya! It only happens in the case of few old and abandonned people, but it does happen that going to the doctor is a ritual and I know from friends who work in clinics that many times the old person only queues up on a regular basis in the hall with others, where they share experience, talk and are talked to – and then go home without actually seeing the doc. That’s all they needed. You meet all these cases once too often and you get de-sensitivised. (Dunno if that is an existing word, but I hope you get the picture.) You think that the old guy is just taking your time away from others you could actually help and make a real difference for.
“But isn’t properly diagnosing someone part of the protocol as well? Or are you saying that even doctors would treat an old nobody drunk in a callous way? If that’s the case, the film seems to be condemning (and ridiculing) that, right?”
Absolutely.
“So you’re saying this is a film about the way old nobodies are mistreated?”
Among a few more things, yes.
“I don’t really get the joke. (I’m an American by the way.)”
The joke is a bitter one. Meaning: if you think that by simply demanding what’s right, you are going to have a hard time. By being supported by someone who counts, you still won’t get far – unless you keep knocking like in the parable from the Bible. Insist – or… die, in this case.
“And the purpose of this is to show that other people wouldn’t go out of there way to help him? If that’s correct, what is the purpose of that?”
Making us aware. Here is a nobody. An old nobody at that. An archetype of what none of us wants to be. What we are all afraid of becoming. We don’t even want to consider that we could ever be like that. And we are “forced” to watch him die. He is dying lonely – or is he? aren’t we all watching, uncomfortably, trying to find an explanation, a philosophy that could “tame” it somehow, to make it all look less absurd, less nonsensical?
To make sure that it can’t happen to us.
@Robert W Peabody III
“Okay, so we have a human being and we know doctors doctor right?
So why don’t they doctor the guy in the film?”
I’m not sure I understand you right. Are you asking why they don’t give him treatment? Because they try to avoid thinking of him as a human being who is worth it. Somehow trying to pretend that there is nothing really wrong with him, or when they realize that there is, then sticking to the protocol, so that they don’t have to consider any analogy between themselves and him.
Like people who refuse to look at beggars and homeless people on the roadside. “It’s not my business. It’s their fault. They would use the money for drugs or alcohol anyway.” Etc.
“What is it that lets them not do what they are supposed to do?”
The effort not to identify with him in any ways. This is why the figure is portrayed so carefully without any element that could trigger any feeling of connection. You can’t identify with him, you are afraid to identify with him in any ways. He is an old nobody – but he could be you… (Yikes! God forbid!!!! Etc. That’s why it is so hard to watch – and why it is a masterpiece.)
“Aren’t there rules, roles, and regulations that dehumanize their purpose at the same time those things structure their purpose?”
Will you re-word this, please? I don’t understand, sorry.
@lenke
That was querying Jazz, but basically, social structure disavows people of humanity.
@Lenke
Well, he could be, couldn’t he? And he doesn’t insist that he’s not!!
Are you sure about this? I can’t remember if he specifically says he’s not drunk, but he does protest when they make those comments, insisting that the problem is more severe. Several times he gets into an argument with the medical professionals, prompting the paramedic to tell him he has to calm down. Why is this not tantamount to “insisting?”
Also, if Lazarescu doesn’t “insist,” are you placing blame on him for the treatment he receives? This seems to go against the notion of condemning the medical professionals for their mistreatment of this ordinary, old man.
t is a really existing phenomenon, and I for example know personally about a case with an old guy who starves on purpose so that when he is in really bad condition, is admitted to a hospital and is taken care of, talked to, listened to and all in all: treated as if he counts.
I’m not sure if this happens in the U.S. or how prevalent it is. I wouldn’t be surprised if this does happen, but I would be totally surprised if the medical professionals treated individuals in the same way. Did you think the film meant to portray the behavior of the medical professionals as realistic or was it farcical? I felt certain that the film intended the latter.
The joke is a bitter one. Meaning: if you think that by simply demanding what’s right, you are going to have a hard time. By being supported by someone who counts, you still won’t get far – unless you keep knocking like in the parable from the Bible. Insist – or… die, in this case.
I think I might be missing something in the translation of the joke, but I get the general idea. Again, from what I remember, I thought Lazarescu “insisted” and protested about the diagnosis and treatment. The paramedic also began to “insist” on his behalf.
Making us aware. Here is a nobody. An old nobody at that. An archetype of what none of us wants to be. What we are all afraid of becoming. We don’t even want to consider that we could ever be like that. And we are “forced” to watch him die. He is dying lonely – or is he? aren’t we all watching, uncomfortably, trying to find an explanation, a philosophy that could “tame” it somehow, to make it all look less absurd, less nonsensical?
To make sure that it can’t happen to us.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. The point of making Lazarescu an ordinary man is to make us aware of…how ordinary, old people die? And if we’re aware of that we can prevent that from happening to us? How? I’m having a hard time connecting these things to the actual film.
Because they try to avoid thinking of him as a human being who is worth it. Somehow trying to pretend that there is nothing really wrong with him, or when they realize that there is, then sticking to the protocol, so that they don’t have to consider any analogy between themselves and him.
So, would you say that this happens frequently to medical professionals and people who don’t seem to be “worth helping?” Would this occur with doctors treating mentally ill patients, drug-addicts, homeless people, etc.? Or is there something unique about Lazarescu?
Are you also suggesting that caring for someone like Lazarescu means seeing and experiencing some connection with that person—a connection that they don’t want to admit? I’m not a medical professional, so I don’t really know what and how they feel, but I would be appalled if they treated old, lonely people—or homeless people, drug-addicts, criminals, mentally-ill patients, etc.—the same way Lazarescu was treated. I have difficulty believing that they would treat these people this way—at least I would have a hard time believing this was a norm.
By the way, maybe it might help if you articulate what you think the film is really about.
@Robert
How Lazarescu is constructed is a very important puzzle piece to understand what the film is saying.
Can you explain how Lazarescu is constructed and the way this relates to what the film is saying?
Aren’t there rules, roles, and regulations that dehumanize their purpose at the same time those things structure their purpose?
So the film is critiquing the bureaucratic rules and procedures of the hospital and health care system? You think the film is saying that these rules cause the dehumanizing behavior we see? Hmm, I don’t know if I buy that. How, exactly, does the film show the way the rules and procedures lead to dehumanizing behavior? I’m sure these kind of rules can have that effect, but I don’t think the film shows the rules as the cause for this behavior.
@Jazz Can you explain how Lazarescu is constructed and the way this relates to what the film is saying?
I found an interview in filmcomment with Cristi Puiu which goes into the reasons the opening 55 minutes is important.
Reading the inetrview, you will most likely realize the film is not a farce or necessarily a critique of the healthcare system.
This is the quote that interested me:
In my opinion, there’s no such thing as collective failure or individual failure regarding the carelessness shown in DOML. And, for sure, it has nothing to do with “national character,” whatever that means. The carelessness you are talking about is a state of fact, a dimension of the individual. This carelessness is the name of the interest we have for ourselves given by others, the dark side of egoism, which is what keeps us alive.
The interest we have for ourselves given by others is to me another way of saying societal structure.
If I am a doctor, I care about being a doctor, my identity. I have my purpose given to me by society.
@Robert W P. III
“That was querying Jazz, but basically, social structure disavows people of humanity.”
Sorry. I didn’t mean to interfere.
@Jazzaloha
“Also, if Lazarescu doesn’t “insist,” are you placing blame on him for the treatment he receives? This seems to go against the notion of condemning the medical professionals for their mistreatment of this ordinary, old man.”
Is there any way one can suggest when being sarcastic? Of course, I don’t blame him. On the other hand I don’t really blame the doctors either. They are overworked, severely underpaid and have been confronted way too often with cases when they are used to fill in the emotional needs of abandonned old people…
“Did you think the film meant to portray the behavior of the medical professionals as realistic or was it farcical? I felt certain that the film intended the latter.”
Of course it was farcical. Holding the core of the bitter truth. Romania faces now an exodus of doctors. Thousands of them are leaving the country to find a job in Germany and England for example. But I wouldn’t want to detail that aspect for fear that the conversation might turn political.
The point of making Lazarescu an ordinary man is to make us aware of…how ordinary, old people die? And if we’re aware of that we can prevent that from happening to us? How? I’m having a hard time connecting these things to the actual film."
Sorry. I thought I managed to make myself clear: it wants to make us aware of the fact that ordinary old people are PEOPLE, just like us. And if we want to avoid dying the way he did, we should start paying attention to the ordinary old people around us. You know, like in another story where both in heaven and hell there is a huge bowl of delicious food, but people are given way too long spoons so that they can’t eat from it. In hell everyone struggles and fails, in heaven: everybody successfully feeds others and gets fed.
“So, would you say that this happens frequently to medical professionals and people who don’t seem to be “worth helping?” Would this occur with doctors treating mentally ill patients, drug-addicts, homeless people, etc.? Or is there something unique about Lazarescu?”
If it only happens once, it’s way too often. It shouldn’t happen at all. But it does. Nothing unique about this guy. At least the authors try to make sure not to give him any characteristics to make him stand out in any ways.
“Again, from what I remember, I thought Lazarescu “insisted” and protested about the diagnosis and treatment. The paramedic also began to “insist” on his behalf.”
The only problem is that they are running out of time…
“Are you also suggesting that caring for someone like Lazarescu means seeing and experiencing some connection with that person—a connection that they don’t want to admit?”
Yes.
“I’m not a medical professional, so I don’t really know what and how they feel, but I would be appalled if they treated old, lonely people—or homeless people, drug-addicts, criminals, mentally-ill patients, etc.—the same way Lazarescu was treated. I have difficulty believing that they would treat these people this way—at least I would have a hard time believing this was a norm.”
As I said above: if it only happens once, it’s too much…
“By the way, maybe it might help if you articulate what you think the film is really about.”
I would like to… but that has to wait a bit. On the one hand it’s pretty hard to find enough time all at once to do so (yes, I can type a few sentences here and there, now and then, but, like everybody else, I presume, I’m pretty snowed under…), on the other hand I must quadruple-check my language. I seem to have serious difficulties in getting my message through. Even with this bit by bit communication where I get feedback almost right away, I’m totally lost, obviously… I’m really very sorry about that. (Thanks for your patience, by the way!)
@Lenke
I seem to have serious difficulties in getting my message through. Even with this bit by bit communication where I get feedback almost right away, I’m totally lost, obviously… I’m really very sorry about that. (Thanks for your patience, by the way!)
I just want to say that good communication on these online forums are often very difficult, at least in my experience. What can seem to be as clear as day to one person, might be very unclear to another. And this occurs when people have the same native language! It’s even worse when one or more people aren’t writing in their native tongue.
So, if I’m not understanding what you’re saying, you definitely shouldn’t think you’re entirely to blame. I could be the one with the problem. Or, the miscommunication could stem from the nature of the medium. Therefore, I think the people that participate on this forum need to be patient with each—don’t assume that you really know what the person means and so take the time to ask questions until you’re really sure you understand the other person. Additionally, if someone says something that just sounds wrong or insulting, don’t be quick to get mad or annoyed. Instead, assume that some misunderstanding has occurred. If you’re initial reading was correct, you can get mad and annoyed at that time, but chances are you’re assumption was wrong.
Is there any way one can suggest when being sarcastic? Of course, I don’t blame him. On the other hand I don’t really blame the doctors either.
Now I need to ask for your patience: I’m not really lost with regard to the joke. So the reference to the Biblical passage about “asking and you will receive” was sarcastic? I’m really confused at this point.
Of course it was farcical.
OK, that’s good to know; we’re on the same page with regard to this point.
Romania faces now an exodus of doctors. Thousands of them are leaving the country to find a job in Germany and England for example.
I had no idea about this.
Sorry. I thought I managed to make myself clear: it wants to make us aware of the fact that ordinary old people are PEOPLE, just like us.
So you’re saying that the film makes us see ourselves in the old man? See, I don’t know if the film had that effect on me. I sympathized with the man, but I thought the focus was on the people who mistreated him. Their behavior was so absurd and over-the-top, it was funny. So for me, the film felt like a farce that skewered the bumbling neighbors, the medical professionals and maybe the health care system overall.
And if we want to avoid dying the way he did, we should start paying attention to the ordinary old people around us.
Do you mean, if we’re sensitive to old people and make sure they’re not mistreated, somehow the action will be reciprocated when the we (assuming we’re young, too) become older? I don’t know if I agree with that. I could buy the idea that the film wants us to be sensitive to vulnerable people in society—like older people living alone, without much friends or support. But I don’t necessarily see the connection between making sure we take care of these people—or at least stop mistreating them—with helping us avoid dying like he did.
If it only happens once, it’s way too often. It shouldn’t happen at all. But it does. Nothing unique about this guy. At least the authors try to make sure not to give him any characteristics to make him stand out in any ways.
I guess I’m asking you about the frequency of this type of behavior because I have a hard time imagining that it would happen at all—but maybe in Romania this kind of behavior is much more common. (Not having been to Romania, I have no idea what is typical behavior.) Again, I don’t even think their behavior is realistic—it’s exaggerated to poke fun or make a point—namely that the health care professionals and the health care system can be inhumane, cruel, stupid and absurd (but not in the exaggerated form we see in the film).
@Robert
If I am a doctor, I care about being a doctor, my identity. I have my purpose given to me by society.
And if I’m following that structure, as a doctor, I’m not going to treat Lazarescu in the way the medical professionals treated him, no?
From wiki:
In theatre, a farce is a comedy which aims at entertaining the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations, disguise and mistaken identity, verbal humor of varying degrees of sophistication, which may include word play, and a fast-paced plot whose speed usually increases, culminating in an ending which often involves an elaborate chase scene. Farces are often highly incomprehensible plot-wise (due to the large number of plot twists and random events that often occur), but viewers are encouraged not to try to follow the plot in order to avoid becoming confused and overwhelmed. Farce is also characterized by physical humor, the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances. Farces have been written for the stage and film.
From director Cristi Puiu article at link above:
I don’t think I can give you the right answer, just a supposition which is related to a Truffaut quote: “A film has to tell us something about life and something about cinema.” So this is what I think: the film contains a vision of life—the story about a human being who dies alone, surrounded by the indifference of the others—and a vision of cinema. For me, cinema is less an art form than a technique for investigating reality. And this is not a Romanian tale, but a tale from Romania.
From director Cristi Puiu quote above/ article at link:
The carelessness you are talking about is a state of fact,….
And if I’m following that structure, as a doctor, I’m not going to treat Lazarescu in the way the medical professionals treated him, no?
From article at link above:
What first made you want to make a film about the failure of humans to act with kindness to a sick man?
Director Cristi Puiu: ………………. The discovery of the fact that we are acting according to a certain model which is defined by personal priorities.
So yeah, given one’s social status as a Doctor, you are able to make personal decisions that amount to being careless.
Where is that shown in the film?
“…..when a doctor wanders into the admitting room and asks for a cell phone battery in order to make a call, all the while ignoring his patient whose life is inexorably ebbing away.”
@Robert
By that wiki definition, maybe the film is not a farce—except for these lines, “…the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances.” Maybe satire is a better word? All I know is that the performances seem over-the-top and exaggerated—mostly for (black) comedic effect.
From Cristi Puiu: So this is what I think: the film contains a vision of life—the story about a human being who dies alone, surrounded by the indifference of the others—and a vision of cinema. For me, cinema is less an art form than a technique for investigating reality. And this is not a Romanian tale, but a tale from Romania.
First of all, you know I don’t think an artist is the ultimate authority on the meaning of his/her work, right? However, that doesn’t mean I would dismiss an artist’s interpretation. I would consider it, but I wouldn’t see it as definitive.
Second, let me see if I understand his (and presumably your) interpretation of the film: the film is about treatment of social outcasts—or people so easily forgotten and neglected that they’re essentially treated as outcasts? Is that right? So the fact that most of the people dealing with Lazarescu were health care professionals mean very little. Lazarescu might have been dealing with government bureaucrats or people in his neighborhood? In other words, the health care system and the medical professions aren’t a target. The film’s point is much broader—aiming at social attitudes towards old, lonely people like Lazarescu?
So yeah, given one’s social status as a Doctor, you are able to make personal decisions that amount to being careless.
I find this a bit odd. For one thing, of all the people in society, I would think doctors would be less likely to ignore someone’s physical condition—especially when that person complaining about physical pain. Can doctors behave callously and mistreat people because of social reasons? Sure, but the dismissiveness seem uncharacteristic of their profession. I can understand if non-medical professionals (like the neighbors) might dismiss Lazarescu’s complaint and his condition—because they’re not medical professionals. But for medical professionals to do this suggests a critique on medical profession/system—rather than just critiquing social attitudes towards people like Lazarescu.
As for the status of the doctors, you’re saying that they’re prestige allows them to be careless? Again, that seems odd. If the film wanted to make that point, it should have chose another profession (say, lawyers, or bankers, academics, etc.). The social status of doctors doesn’t make them careless with regard to diagnosing a person. It might lead to rude or cruel behavior, but not necessarily bad diagnosis.
Where is that shown in the film?
“…..when a doctor wanders into the admitting room and asks for a cell phone battery in order to make a call, all the while ignoring his patient whose life is inexorably ebbing away.”
But does that occur because doctor’s feel like they’re a privileged class? I can understand if they’re carelessness and callous because a lot of old people come in with fake illnesses, but I would have had no idea that is a common occurrence in Romania.
.
The film’s point is much broader—aiming at social attitudes towards old, lonely people like Lazarescu?
Cristi Puiu is interested in death, dying and indifference – so a hospital was the best context.
We don’t know he is dying until well into the film. That is part of the strangeness of the ‘how’ of the film.
For one thing, of all the people in society, I would think doctors would be less likely to ignore someone’s physical condition—especially when that person complaining about physical pain. Can doctors behave callously and mistreat people because of social reasons?
I think that is what director Cristi Puiu is getting at here: The discovery of the fact that we are acting according to a certain model which is defined by personal priorities.
I’ve done lots of volunteer work with the blind and disabled people and I am appalled at how the professionals treat these people vs volunteers.
But to answer your question directly, doctors are at the top of the ER hierarchy – a nurse couldn’t get away with ignoring a patent for very long in their career.
We don’t know he is dying until well into the film. That is part of the strangeness of the ‘how’ of the film.
Is not knowing this, initially, significant? I didn’t think I knew he was going to die, but I strongly suspected that he had a serious condition. (And I felt this way partly because of the over-the-top dismissal of his condition.)
The discovery of the fact that we are acting according to a certain model which is defined by personal priorities.
I’m not sure what you mean by “…moderl which is defined by personal priorities.” Do you mean that individuals have their own agenda and personal interests and that these things get in the way from treating others in a decent way? (That’s what it sounds like you’re saying, although when you use “model,” it sounds like you’re referring to the idea of being a doctor or [fill in the profession]).
But to answer your question directly, doctors are at the top of the ER hierarchy – a nurse couldn’t get away with ignoring a patent for very long in their career.
OK, but I’m having a hard time with this interpretation because the film chooses doctors. If someone like Lazarescu approached a business man (or almost any profession, really), complaining about pain in his stomach, the business man treating him dismissively would be believable and it would fit with the point of how we place our personal priorities over people who are in need of help. But using a medical professional to make this point seems odd because investigating and properly diagnosing someone who is complaining about pain is part of their job. Of course, there are doctors that don’t do their jobs well or take their jobs seriously, but in my experience I haven’t seen someone treated the way Lazarescu was treated. (And I’ve had experience with medical professionals (specifically a surgeon) being rude and callous.) And remember we have a lot of people in the film who behave in this fashion.
I’ve done lots of volunteer work with the blind and disabled and I am appalled at how the professionals treat these people vs volunteers. I remember one time the paid staff left a blind person in harms way, while they rushed for the lunch wagon.
Regarding the film, the context makes more sense once we know what the film is about. If it is about dying in an indifferent world, the indifference of paid professionals makes it more intense.
I’ve done lots of volunteer work with the blind and disabled and I am appalled at how the professionals treat these people vs volunteers. I remember one time the paid staff left a blind person in harms way, while they rushed for the lunch wagon.
I’m not surprised by this, but this seems a little different from several medical professional misdiagnosing and mistreating an individual.
Regarding the film, the context makes more sense once we know what the film is about. If it is about dying in an indifferent world, the indifference of paid professionals makes it more intense.
OK, but I think the over-the-top behavior of the medical professions weakened the poignancy of the film’s point—if what you’re saying is correct. I didn’t focus so much on Lazarescu’s lonely and inhumane death, so much as the outrageous behavior—to the point of being comical—of the medical professionals. It was cartoonish and because of that I thought the film intended to lampoon the medical professionals and the medical system. Perhaps if the medical professionals behaved more realistically—more like real people—I would have interpreted the film the way you did. Did you see In the Loop? The character who spouted profanity-laced invectives reminded me of some of the behavior in this film. It just seemed excessive to the point of being comical but not realistic.
@Jazzaloha
“If someone like Lazarescu approached a business man (or almost any profession, really), complaining about pain in his stomach, the business man treating him dismissively would be believable and it would fit with the point of how we place our personal priorities over people who are in need of help. But using a medical professional to make this point seems odd because investigating and properly diagnosing someone who is complaining about pain is part of their job. Of course, there are doctors that don’t do their jobs well or take their jobs seriously, but in my experience I haven’t seen someone treated the way Lazarescu was treated.”
You probably haven’t seen residents who make roughly 250-300 dollars a month as salary, whereas – due to the European Union thing – the prices are about the same here as anywhere else in the world. I’m talking in general, of course, whoever is interested in particular details, will be able to find enough information on the net. You might not have seen so many old and abandonned people who (as I already said) take up the time of the medical professionals, simply because they have nobody else who would care for them in any ways. (According to my friends working in clinics and hospitals: there is not a single day without them.) And I’m not sure how the drunk and homeless people are treated where you live, but over here they are considered somehow “subhuman” by most people, medical personnel notwithstanding. (Nobody wants to have to do with them, considering that they are to be blamed for where they are and they don’t deserve a second look.) Put all these in one bowl, spice it up with the due exaggeration of the genre (farce) and you already have the core of this film.
Oh, and one more thing: if it turns out that Mr. Lăzărescu is no real emergency/medical case, but he is a drunk nobody without insurance as the doctors presume, just by looking at him – who is going to pay the bills/cost of the medical care?
Perhaps if the medical professionals behaved more realistically—more like real people….
Making it more contextually concrete would ruin almost any film.
Although we’ve touched on the ‘how’ of the film, we are still fumbling with what the film is about.
If we don’t have the correct ‘what’, the ‘how’ is always going to be out if alignment making the film unworthy of filmcomment’s accolades.
The interview is definitely worth a read….here
Oh, and one more thing: if it turns out that Mr. Lăzărescu is no real emergency/medical case, but he is a drunk nobody without insurance as the doctors presume, just by looking at him – who is going to pay the bills/cost of the medical care?
I think that’s a pretty human reaction, crossing all cultural and historical contexts. That’s another generalization I’m making, of course, but who can go a day without making (at least) one? It’s only through generalizations that we make any sense of the world we live in, after all. <—- another generalization??
@Lenke
*And I’m not sure how the drunk and homeless people are treated where you live, but over here they are considered somehow “subhuman” by most people, medical personnel notwithstanding. (Nobody wants to have to do with them, considering that they are to be blamed for where they are and they don’t deserve a second look.) *
It’s the same here. But if the film is about raising awareness for the neglect of old, lonely peope (or the marginalized, in general), I don’t think the film worked for me—for reasons I stated to Robert (i.e., I focused more on the absurd behavior of the medical professionals.).
@Robert
Making it more contextually concrete would ruin almost any film.
I’m not sure what you mean by “contextually concrete,” but what about something like the Dardennes’ Rosetta, which, if your interpretation of the TDoML is correct, is a similar type of film, as it raises issues about a certain type of person in society. From what I remember, that film was realistic and contextually concrete(?).
@Robert
Although we’ve touched on the ‘how’ of the film, we are still fumbling with what the film is about.
Yeah. I think I have a better idea of what you and Lenke think the film is about, but I’m not 100% sure about this, either.
By the way, I read most of the interview. I definitely interpreted and experienced the film very differently from Puiu’s original intentions.
@ Jazz I’m not sure what you mean by “contextually concrete,”
Yes, Dardennes and Puia are focused in on reality but it is a cinematic reality.
The operative word there was more “contextually concrete,”; as in more facts that would ground the work in reality. This is Cristi Puiu’s reality that he is investigating and specifically, death in an indifferent world.
@Robert
I don’t think we’re understanding each other. I’m saying that Puiu’s characters are behaving in an absurd, as opposed to realistic, way. That doesn’t occur in Dardennes’ films. The films of both filmmakers have their own cinematic reality, but the characters in Dardennes’ films behave more like real people. The people in TDoML behave more like the characters in Dr. Strangelove. See what I’m saying?
Okay, but Dardennes’ characters are a reality, just like Kubrick’s characters are a reality.
Their reality is different, as you pointed out.
Yeah, we’ll have to disagree on the over-the-topness of Puiu’s characters, it was more situational for me by way of the structure of the film.
lenke
By “stripping away,” are you referring to the fact that Lazarescu is an ordinary person?
Very carefully portrayed as such.